Alternative Worlds and the Future of International Relations: Gini-Out-of-the-Bottle Yolonda Franklin
November 07, 2014
Alternative Worlds & the Future of International Relations: Gini-Out-of-the-Bottle
Mr. President, I have been tasked to discuss “Alternative Worlds” scenario which is based on how the future is being predicted. The Gini-out-of-the-bottle concept is what I am predicting for the global market. This particular scenario showcases the various inequalities in the countries as well as the global divide between the rich and poor countries such as between America and Kenya. In this scenario, we are no more closer to ending terrorism than we are now due to the widening gap of financial irresponsibility and a low growth rate in the poorer countries.
According to the National Intelligence Council (2012), “The world becomes wealthier-as global GDP grows-but less happy as the differences between the haves and have-nots become starker and increasingly immutable” (p. 143, para. 1). One major issue is the security interests of our current administration. There has been too many security breaches within our own government such as the fallout from Edward Snowden and our national security. This paper will discuss the gini-out-of-the-bottle approach and how it is affected by its security interest, military elements, political roles, economic factors, and religion. II. Realism Theoretical Approach:
The International Relations theory that best fits the Gini-out-of-the-bottle approach for this report is the theory of realism. There are five different classes of realism but the two that stands out to me are classic and neorealism. Classic realism leans towards those that represent a pessimistic view and the fact that people are not often what they appear to be and they it would behoove a government not to be so trusting of others. Neorealism represents the struggle of someone that is greedy for more such as power. Another interesting note would be that sovereign actors (states), has no higher authority to report to, so they tend to rely on themselves and this can cause them to resort to threatening tactics (Rourke, 2012). Take for example the global trends discussion on how the failure of Saudi Arabia’s inability to diversify caused an economic crisis in Riyadh, which caused a decline in its income. The reality of this is that no fallout was even considered , so there was no alternative plan as it should have been. Their economists failed to see this shortfall happening. Our text tells us that realism is “An image of international relations or world politics that can be traced back more than two thousand years.
Realists tend to hold a rather pessimistic view, emphasizing the struggle for power and influence among political units acting in a rational, unitary manner in pursuit of objectives grounded in their separate, often divergent interests” (Kauppi, 2013, p. 527). One thing to keep in mind is that The United States will maintain it’s power status and we will see a positive trend of growth during this scenario, but our trade-off will be that we will no longer play the role of as the “global police”. This may pose a problem and we will have no choice but to get involved and bring back order throughout the world. What we will need to focus on is our own economy for a while until positive growth is being seen across the board. III. Security, Economic, and Identity Interests
“Leaders in all three countries also agree that U.S. power is the chief obstacle to achieving their revisionist goals. Their hostility toward Washington and its order is both offensive and defensive: not only do they hope that the decline of U.S. power will make it easier to reorder their regions, but they also worry that Washington might try to overthrow them should discord within their countries grow. Yet the revisionists want to avoid direct confrontations with the...
References: Mead, R. M. (2014, May/June). The return of geopolitics. Foreign Affairs, 93(3),69-79.
Retrieved from the EBSCOhost database.
Obama, B. H. (May 2010). National security strategy. Washington, DC: Office of the President of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf
of Connecticut. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from
Please join StudyMode to read the full document